Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Free to Think for Themselves
by A.C. Grayling
Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/16/religion-islam-humanism-secularism-conway-hall
At a gathering of courageous ex-Muslims, the value of rational thought and personal choice were triumphantly reaffirmed
I enjoyed a rare privilege last Friday, October 10 (which was world day against the death penalty), attending a gathering of brave and principled people to whom the death penalty might be applied in a number of countries around the world because of their beliefs or lack of them. This was the conference organised the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain to discuss apostasy — the "crime" of which all members of the Council are guilty — and associated questions about the place of religion and free thought in civil society.
The members of the Council of Ex-Muslims are people who, having thought things through for themselves, have put aside the religion they were made to accept as children — a common enough feature of the adult attainment of reason among many — but in this case the religion is Islam, which regards apostasy as punishable by death.
I wonder how many reading these words have sat in a gathering of people not a few of whom have received death threats because they think for themselves, and who have chosen a path not only personally dangerous but full of difficulty in relation to their families and communities — and who have done so because of reflectively chosen principle. It is a striking experience. In our relatively peaceful and tolerant western dispensations, disagreements of principle are rarely matters of murder; which is why some people find themselves incapable of grasping what last Friday's gathering signified.
The symbolic import of the conference was great; the substance of the discussions was absorbing and important. It was about the nature of apostasy, the freedom to choose whether or not to have a religion, and to criticise religion whether or not one subscribes to it; the question whether there should be one and the same law for all or whether Britain's Muslim minority should be allowed to apply sharia law to itself; and the question of faith schools, religious education and creationist doctrine. The themes all related to the place of the individual in civil society, and whether religious doctrine should be allowed to impose itself on those unwilling to be governed by it or — as with children — powerless to resist it.
The conference was opened by the head of the Iranian Secular Society, Fariborz Pooya, and addressed by the extraordinary and courageous Maryam Namazie, spokesperson of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, who subjected Islamism — political Islam — to scrutiny, arguing that it serves as an agency of Islamic states with serious implications for the lives, rights and freedoms of individuals, many of whom have left their countries of origin precisely to escape the repressive political and social climates there — countries with "moral police" and the death penalty for, among others, gay people, lovers who engage in extra-marital sex and people who reject religious orthodoxy.
A source of frustration for many is that they are lumped into "the Muslim community" whose self-elected spokespeople are more representative of the Islamic states that many in their "Muslim community" have fled: which is why the Council of Ex-Muslims makes a point of calling itself this, to reinforce the point that not everyone who was born into a Muslim community has to be permanently forced into homogenised membership of it. Another reason is to encourage the many closet "apostates" in that community that there is life and succour outside it.
Among those who spoke were Ibn Warraq, Joan Smith, Richard Dawkins, and the founder of Germany's Council of Ex-Muslims, Mina Ahadi, a woman as extraordinary and admirable as Maryam Namizie. It is a speaking fact that the lead in these eminently important and courageous movements is taken by women: from Lysistrata to the Northern Ireland women's peace movement, despite all the obstacles and prejudices that women have historically faced, they give a lead and an example which puts their opponents to shame.
The conference was supported by the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association, so that the dozens of ex-Muslims present had the support of over 200 others who believe in the right of individuals to think for themselves and who treat people as human individuals, not merely as bearers of overriding identity labels stuck to their foreheads by tradition and religion. A friend who is a crown court judge once told me that he is always pleased when a member of a jury affirms rather than swears the oath on the Bible, because it indicates independence and maturity of mind. Indeed: that was what was on display last Friday at Conway Hall.
One of those speaking at the conference, my friend Ibn Warraq, recently edited a book on apostasy in Islam, which combines a scholarly overview of doctrines on apostasy in the various schools of Islamic law, with a collection of powerful personal testimonies by those who came to leave Islam either for another faith or none. It was interesting to compare the accounts there given with those in Louise Anthony's book Philosophers Without Gods, which collects similar accounts by ex-Christians and ex-Jews. The personal cost in family and community terms of rejecting the doctrines of any of these religions is very similar; only in Islam does the danger of being murdered for doing so remain.
But, horribly, it is a genuine danger. That is why some of the speeches made during this conference, and some of the remarks from the floor, were filled with a passion and concern that were as real as they were moving. Not least among the matters that surfaced several times in different contexts was the question of the position of women in Islam. To take just one issue: in sharia law a woman is worth half a man, and thus among many other things receives half the inheritance that a man does. Like other provisions of sharia law, this is a stark example of contrast with the laws of England and Wales and with Scottish law, in both of which principles of justice do not countenance systematic discrimination on the basis of sex. By the oppressive requirements of conformity with community practices, many women in Muslim communities in Britain are obliged to observe the practices that the community prefers, across the whole range from whom they marry to what they wear.
The establishment of sharia law courts would accordingly mean their often being obliged to suffer the injustice of deep discrimination. As with genital mutilation as practiced in some communities, and honour killings in others, that cannot be tolerated: relativism — which alas underwrites the views of some, like Rowan Williams, on this subject — has no place here.
Nothing of what was discussed at this important and moving conference was anything but real: real lives subjected to death threats, discrimination, coercion and stigmatisation — and all because the people involved think for themselves, a right that the rest of us take for granted and, when it is threatened, jealously guard. It was a gentle and informal affair, with the relaxed flavour of a works outing: but there can have been no one there who did not at some point reflect that it was a juicy opportunity for some maniac to get rid of a whole raft of apostates and atheists in one big bang.
The great thing is that the conference would have been a victory for what it represented if that had happened. As it was, it was anyway a victory and a much happier one: a victory for its brave sponsors and their brave cause. A report of the conference can be found here: http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/eng/pressreleases/press-pages/Conference-Report-October10-2008.htm, and video footage here:http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/eng/pressreleases/press-pages/Video-Conference-Report-October10-2008.htm
For a response, go to:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3252,Death-for-apostasy,Nesrine-Malik
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/16/religion-islam-humanism-secularism-conway-hall
At a gathering of courageous ex-Muslims, the value of rational thought and personal choice were triumphantly reaffirmed
I enjoyed a rare privilege last Friday, October 10 (which was world day against the death penalty), attending a gathering of brave and principled people to whom the death penalty might be applied in a number of countries around the world because of their beliefs or lack of them. This was the conference organised the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain to discuss apostasy — the "crime" of which all members of the Council are guilty — and associated questions about the place of religion and free thought in civil society.
The members of the Council of Ex-Muslims are people who, having thought things through for themselves, have put aside the religion they were made to accept as children — a common enough feature of the adult attainment of reason among many — but in this case the religion is Islam, which regards apostasy as punishable by death.
I wonder how many reading these words have sat in a gathering of people not a few of whom have received death threats because they think for themselves, and who have chosen a path not only personally dangerous but full of difficulty in relation to their families and communities — and who have done so because of reflectively chosen principle. It is a striking experience. In our relatively peaceful and tolerant western dispensations, disagreements of principle are rarely matters of murder; which is why some people find themselves incapable of grasping what last Friday's gathering signified.
The symbolic import of the conference was great; the substance of the discussions was absorbing and important. It was about the nature of apostasy, the freedom to choose whether or not to have a religion, and to criticise religion whether or not one subscribes to it; the question whether there should be one and the same law for all or whether Britain's Muslim minority should be allowed to apply sharia law to itself; and the question of faith schools, religious education and creationist doctrine. The themes all related to the place of the individual in civil society, and whether religious doctrine should be allowed to impose itself on those unwilling to be governed by it or — as with children — powerless to resist it.
The conference was opened by the head of the Iranian Secular Society, Fariborz Pooya, and addressed by the extraordinary and courageous Maryam Namazie, spokesperson of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, who subjected Islamism — political Islam — to scrutiny, arguing that it serves as an agency of Islamic states with serious implications for the lives, rights and freedoms of individuals, many of whom have left their countries of origin precisely to escape the repressive political and social climates there — countries with "moral police" and the death penalty for, among others, gay people, lovers who engage in extra-marital sex and people who reject religious orthodoxy.
A source of frustration for many is that they are lumped into "the Muslim community" whose self-elected spokespeople are more representative of the Islamic states that many in their "Muslim community" have fled: which is why the Council of Ex-Muslims makes a point of calling itself this, to reinforce the point that not everyone who was born into a Muslim community has to be permanently forced into homogenised membership of it. Another reason is to encourage the many closet "apostates" in that community that there is life and succour outside it.
Among those who spoke were Ibn Warraq, Joan Smith, Richard Dawkins, and the founder of Germany's Council of Ex-Muslims, Mina Ahadi, a woman as extraordinary and admirable as Maryam Namizie. It is a speaking fact that the lead in these eminently important and courageous movements is taken by women: from Lysistrata to the Northern Ireland women's peace movement, despite all the obstacles and prejudices that women have historically faced, they give a lead and an example which puts their opponents to shame.
The conference was supported by the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association, so that the dozens of ex-Muslims present had the support of over 200 others who believe in the right of individuals to think for themselves and who treat people as human individuals, not merely as bearers of overriding identity labels stuck to their foreheads by tradition and religion. A friend who is a crown court judge once told me that he is always pleased when a member of a jury affirms rather than swears the oath on the Bible, because it indicates independence and maturity of mind. Indeed: that was what was on display last Friday at Conway Hall.
One of those speaking at the conference, my friend Ibn Warraq, recently edited a book on apostasy in Islam, which combines a scholarly overview of doctrines on apostasy in the various schools of Islamic law, with a collection of powerful personal testimonies by those who came to leave Islam either for another faith or none. It was interesting to compare the accounts there given with those in Louise Anthony's book Philosophers Without Gods, which collects similar accounts by ex-Christians and ex-Jews. The personal cost in family and community terms of rejecting the doctrines of any of these religions is very similar; only in Islam does the danger of being murdered for doing so remain.
But, horribly, it is a genuine danger. That is why some of the speeches made during this conference, and some of the remarks from the floor, were filled with a passion and concern that were as real as they were moving. Not least among the matters that surfaced several times in different contexts was the question of the position of women in Islam. To take just one issue: in sharia law a woman is worth half a man, and thus among many other things receives half the inheritance that a man does. Like other provisions of sharia law, this is a stark example of contrast with the laws of England and Wales and with Scottish law, in both of which principles of justice do not countenance systematic discrimination on the basis of sex. By the oppressive requirements of conformity with community practices, many women in Muslim communities in Britain are obliged to observe the practices that the community prefers, across the whole range from whom they marry to what they wear.
The establishment of sharia law courts would accordingly mean their often being obliged to suffer the injustice of deep discrimination. As with genital mutilation as practiced in some communities, and honour killings in others, that cannot be tolerated: relativism — which alas underwrites the views of some, like Rowan Williams, on this subject — has no place here.
Nothing of what was discussed at this important and moving conference was anything but real: real lives subjected to death threats, discrimination, coercion and stigmatisation — and all because the people involved think for themselves, a right that the rest of us take for granted and, when it is threatened, jealously guard. It was a gentle and informal affair, with the relaxed flavour of a works outing: but there can have been no one there who did not at some point reflect that it was a juicy opportunity for some maniac to get rid of a whole raft of apostates and atheists in one big bang.
The great thing is that the conference would have been a victory for what it represented if that had happened. As it was, it was anyway a victory and a much happier one: a victory for its brave sponsors and their brave cause. A report of the conference can be found here: http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/eng/pressreleases/press-pages/Conference-Report-October10-2008.htm, and video footage here:http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/eng/pressreleases/press-pages/Video-Conference-Report-October10-2008.htm
For a response, go to:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3252,Death-for-apostasy,Nesrine-Malik
Comments 1 - 50 of 244 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #266444 by Wosret on October 19, 2008 at 2:02 am
Excellent and fantastic. This was very uplifting to read. Other Comments by Wosret
3. Comment #266446 by rod-the-farmer on October 19, 2008 at 2:05 am
I second the motion of monosilabbiq regarding having this group given equal representation before the UK government.I will check out the site mentioned, to see if there are any personal stories of pressure applied to these apostates.
I have asked before on this site, and received no answer - Can someone please describe the gap in English Common Law, or any other part of the legal system in the UK or elsewhere in the west, that can only be filled by importing a legal system from the islamic world ? Unless & until someone can describe such a gap, then I see no need to import sharia law, ever.
EDIT. The first link not only does not work, it is a nasty one, in that you cannot back out and return to the RD web site.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
4. Comment #266463 by Monosilabbiq on October 19, 2008 at 2:32 am
Taking a dispute in front of the British legal system is expensive and can take a long time. Many years ago (sorry I don't know the fine detail)a law was passed allowing the participants in a dispute to go to any other arbitration process - provided all parties agreed to such arbitration. The outcome of that arbitration is subsequently binding in the eyes of British Law. This has mainly been used by the Jewish community in Britain, but is open to anyone. As has been stated on this site on a different thread - if the parties agree to the best of 10 goes at paper, stone, scissors then British Law will subsequently back it up.I think that arbitration law needs to be reviewed. I think that any arbitration that does not take into account the principles of non-discrimination should be made invalid. Discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexuality, religion, football club etc is a blight that has been difficult to erase in our society. It shouldn't be allowed to creep in through a Trojan horse.
As an apostate from the CofE I feel quite safe. I suffer no problems within my family circle or within my social circle. All people should be able to feel this way.
Other Comments by Monosilabbiq
5. Comment #266471 by oasis-al-reason on October 19, 2008 at 3:04 am
I too second monosilabbiq's motion. Perhaps there will be a benefactor, maybe the free press and media could help to raise their profile...Its a privilege to witness the courage emboldened by these people to form their council in the face of clear and present danger, I'm ever grateful for not being burdened at birth into that faith - I don't think I'd have such courage.
Best wishes to the council and hope it grows.
Other Comments by oasis-al-reason
6. Comment #266478 by JamesLondon74 on October 19, 2008 at 3:30 am
At last.Other Comments by JamesLondon74
7. Comment #266481 by suffolkthinker on October 19, 2008 at 3:36 am
As has been stated on this site on a different thread - if the parties agree to the best of 10 goes at paper, stone, scissors then British Law will subsequently back it up.This is completely true but the corollary is all one has to do to NOT be bound by Sharia Law, Paper Stone Scissor or the High Court of the FSM is not to agree to that binding arbitration.
Also this only applies to civil disputes NOT Criminal or Family matters. Even if all parties in a divorce agreed to be bound by some other tribunial English (or Scottish or Northern Irish) laws would take precident.
Getting mis focused on this "Sharia Law in England" issue is I think a dstraction. If people want to use it for deciding disputes over fences or contracts where all parties us in advance agree to it I see no problem. It is no different to 2 parties signing a contract in England and agreeing to be bound by the Laws of Califonia and the exclusive arbitration of their courts: something that happens in business everyday.
Just keep it out of family and criminal law - something that to my knowledge has never been suggested by anyone in the Britsh governments nor in the legal profession.
Other Comments by suffolkthinker
8. Comment #266484 by Richard Dawkins on October 19, 2008 at 3:51 am
This is completely true but the corollary is all one has to do to NOT be bound by Sharia Law, Paper Stone Scissor or the High Court of the FSM is not to agree to that binding arbitration.This sounds reasonable, but it received short shrift at the conference of Ex-Muslims. The reason, as many people pointed out, is that women in Islam are bullied, beaten and intimidated, and are far from free agents in their choice of court. Many are told, falsely, that Sharia courts are the ONLY option. They often believe this, especially those who don't speak English (and many Muslim women in Britain are discouraged from learning English, just as girls in Afghanistan are discouraged from having any education at all). Many British Muslims are told, no doubt by their "community leaders" that to go to a British court as opposed to a Sharia court is "un-Islamic".
Richard
Other Comments by Richard Dawkins
9. Comment #266486 by Steve Zara on October 19, 2008 at 4:05 am
Because of my moderate nature, I was until recently not to worried about the use of Shariah-compatible business practices. But the degree of compulsion that can be involved in the use of Shariah within Muslim communities does worry me. I think we should avoid pandering to it in any form.Other Comments by Steve Zara
10. Comment #266494 by Monosilabbiq on October 19, 2008 at 5:23 am
The devil is in the detail. British newspapers have reported that the "Sharia" arbitration courts have been working for some time and have dealt with a wide variety of cases. There have been a number of inheritance cases in which the settlement followed the practice of allowing twice as much for a son as a daughter. I hope that the newspapers continue to keep people informed on the generalities of these courts' actions.This is all a side issue on this thread, but I assume it will become part of the work of the Council of ex-Muslims of Britain. The government should recognise their importance as a group and support their aims.
Other Comments by Monosilabbiq
11. Comment #266495 by nalfeshnee on October 19, 2008 at 5:30 am
suffolkthinker posted:
It is no different to 2 parties signing a contract in England and agreeing to be bound by the Laws of Califonia and the exclusive arbitration of their courts: something that happens in business everyday.
I think it is hugely different. One often hears the term "sharia law" as if it is a codified body of knowledge accepted universally within the Islamic world.
It isn't. It basically boils down to what the local Islamic "scholars" consider to be their interpretation of the Koran (and maybe Hadith, etc.).
To further back up Richard's point on women often being bullied into sharia arbitration, I would direct interested readers to http://www.islamic-sharia.org/, and request that they read the divorce procedure for men and women.
They are quite different.
And, as the ISC itself states, the vast majority of cases it hears are from women seeking to divorce their husbands.
Since this ISC "divorce" is just a religious device and carries no legal weight, it means that these women are confusedly applying for an "Islamic divorce" that they do NOT need under law.
The following should leave no one in any doubt about the intentions of the ISC:
http://www.islamic-sharia.org/how-it-works/how-the-isc-works-4.html
Quote:
The final decision to issue a divorce is made during a monthly meeting; the applicant is interviewed before or during the meeting: if the husband replies to any of the Council's letters, his views are conveyed to the applicant so that she may respond to them. If any conditions have been stipulated by the husband and provided that these conditions are deemed to be reasonable, the applicant is required to comply with them.
Divorce can be denied to an applicant on the grounds that she has failed to comply with any reasonable preconditions stipulated by her husband.
As well as the following apparently false claim:
The Council is a registered charity and its constitution empowers it to preside over cases where either party has been living permanently in this country and at least one of the parties has made an application, requesting the Council's judgement.
IANAL, but I understood the application of the UK's arbitration law as meaning that the ISC is most certainly NOT entitled to judge cases where one of the parties does not wish to undergo sharia arbitration.
It seems the Council of Ex-Muslims has its work cut out for it in combating such rumours and downright dishonesty. I wish them the very greatest of success.
(Update: the two most popular searches on the ISC site are "husband" and "divorce".)
Other Comments by nalfeshnee
12. Comment #266496 by decius on October 19, 2008 at 5:38 am
Any system of arbitration that accommodates at its core principles of inequality between the sexes should be rejected off-hand even in its mildest configurations. The ideologues for unbridled multiculturalism, who support the introduction of any form of Sharia, are attempting to undermine de jure secularism and egalitarianism, which, ironically, are supposed to be the pillars of liberal and progressive thought.
Here is the cancer of post-modernism in action for us all to see. We are being peddled misogyny in lieu of cultural diversity and backwardness in lieu of progress, at the modest price of three centuries of Enlightenment.
Time to wake up, I say.
Other Comments by decius
13. Comment #266498 by Laurie Fraser on October 19, 2008 at 5:53 am
Comment #266496 by decius
Fucking brilliant! May I quote you?
Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
14. Comment #266499 by decius on October 19, 2008 at 5:56 am
Comment #266498 by Laurie Fraser Thanks, Laurie. Feel free.
Other Comments by decius
15. Comment #266500 by Wosret on October 19, 2008 at 5:57 am
12. Comment #266496 by decius Time to wake up, I say.
I believe you mean, "says I".
Other Comments by Wosret
16. Comment #266502 by Titania on October 19, 2008 at 6:06 am
Morning all.
decius, I actually did just wake up, says I. ;)
I agree with Laurie's assessment of your post.
"No shariah courts" used to be number 2 on my dealing with Muslim extremism plan (after "No Religious Schools", but it is now number 1.
I see Steve Zara is revising his view on business arbitration after further reflection and research.
As a lawyer, I am totally against religious courts except for the resolution of purely religious disputes.
Other Comments by Titania
17. Comment #266503 by SPS on October 19, 2008 at 6:07 am
Comment #266496Excellent post, decius.
Other Comments by SPS
18. Comment #266504 by nalfeshnee on October 19, 2008 at 6:13 am
As a lawyer, I am totally against religious courts except for the resolution of purely religious disputes.
Quite.
I'm reminded of someone's brilliant comment on the "it's just a frickin' cracker" debacle.
"He violated our religious sanctity by taking the holy cracker!"
"So excommunicate him. Problem solved."
I think the sharia problem and the content I referenced from the ISC site indicate where the problem lies.
It is an attempt to award a purely religious matter the weight of real-world adjudication.
So your wife divorced you and she's a Muslim? Well, then, wave a magic wand or something and say that she's now divorced in Islam. End of story.
But don't force her to subjugate herself to the very real mercies of a kangaroo court and pay 250 GBP for the privilege.
I don't think people are aware enough of the fact that this Islamic divorce is a non-entity. It's like a baptism or a christening - it means nothing and has no legal weight and should not require anyone to pay or do anything if they no longer believe in it.
I don't see anyone supporting the rights of husbands to go to arbitration if their (ex-)wives do not believe in the tooth fairy.
Same difference.
Other Comments by nalfeshnee
19. Comment #266508 by Steve Zara on October 19, 2008 at 6:49 am
Comment #266502 by TitaniaOne of the reasons I have been revising my views is a recent BBC Radio 4 report on so-called "ethical" banking in these troubled financial times. They classified Banks which supported Shariah practices as "ethical". While Shariah as commonly implemented treats women as inferior, and gay people as criminals, I found it offensive that it was considered "ethical". This Radio 4 programme was the "last straw" for me.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
20. Comment #266509 by decius on October 19, 2008 at 7:01 am
Titania, SPSThank you.
Mitchell Gilks
LOL
Other Comments by decius
21. Comment #266525 by Hellene on October 19, 2008 at 7:56 am
..and riffing on the Clash;Sharia (sharif) don't like it... Rock the Casbah
Other Comments by Hellene
22. Comment #266528 by Mark Smith on October 19, 2008 at 8:01 am
Decius (and others who are 'against' Sharia courts in the UK)Any system of arbitration that accommodates at its core principles of inequality between the sexes should be rejected off-hand even in its mildest configurations.
Sorry if this has been dealt with elsewhere (if so, can you direct me there) but would you mind clarifying what you are proposing in terms of UK legislation? Do you want to keep the status quo or are you saying sharia courts need to be banned, or something else.
Other Comments by Mark Smith
23. Comment #266533 by decius on October 19, 2008 at 8:24 am
Comment #266528 by Mark Smith Sorry if this has been dealt with elsewhere (if so, can you direct me there) but would you mind clarifying what you are proposing in terms of UK legislation? Do you want to keep the status quo or are you saying sharia courts need to be banned
Sorry, I am not a British
Hopefully, Titania will agree to discuss the technicalities with you.
I can only offer my uninformed opinion, based on some vague notions of international law.
I understand that the British system lacks a proper written Constitution (an absurd anachronism) , but recognises some fundamental rights such as the equality of all subjects in front of the law. GB has also signed a number of internationat treaties binding her to unconditional respect of human rights.
Sharia law needn't be banned, it is inherently illegal for its core principles are in stark contrast with the respect of such human rights.
Case closed.
Other Comments by decius
24. Comment #266541 by Mark Smith on October 19, 2008 at 9:06 am
deciusThanks
It seems to me you are suggesting that Sharia courts in the UK as we currently have them make things significantly worse for certain types of people (eg muslim women) than they would be without it (and presumably all other things remaining equal, eg some muslim men continuing to be oppressive to women). If this is true (which I am not sure about), then the goal should surely be to try to find some way to get rid of it?
[Edit] and I suppose I was wondering what you and others are suggesting
Other Comments by Mark Smith
25. Comment #266546 by Nairb on October 19, 2008 at 9:32 am
Titania, Decius
I am not in any way an expert in law. But I think we dont have a strong ground here.
Let me first say I too am uncomfortable with the notion of religion any where near law.
However Pbum and HungarianElephant have been blowing this argument out of the water on a number of threads.
Their argument is :
1 These are not Sharia courts
2 They are personal contracts between individuals
3 No new laws were introduced to allow this, they simply take advantage of existing arbitration law
4 The "sharia" arbitration courts are subject to British Law as is all arbitration agreements or indeed all contractual agreements between individuals.
In other words the right to "sharia" arbitration is based on the fundamental rights of individuals to do what they want with contracts.I hope this is an accurate reflection of their argument.
Unfortunately I think this trumps my view.
My view is same as Decius- to have arbitration regulated to be allowed only if the ensemble of rules used are compatible with the European court of Human rights.
Other Comments by Nairb
26. Comment #266547 by decius on October 19, 2008 at 9:32 am
Comment #266541 by Mark Smith It's really a matter of empirical fact that women are discriminated under sharia, whether in the UK or anywhere else, as sexual discriminations are enshrined as rule.
Detailed cases of abuse are already accumulating over there, it isn't too long ago that I came across a lengthy and disheartening report.
I agree that you should get rid of it, in fact this whole mockery of justice shouldn't even have begun.
Other Comments by decius
27. Comment #266554 by Mark Smith on October 19, 2008 at 9:48 am
Nairb,Thanks. I think those are useful points. It sounds like, if PBUM and HungarianElephant are right (and I suspect they are), then there may be no way to legislate against it. Instead it would be a case of getting human rights lawyers etc to take action against situations of abuse where possible.
Other Comments by Mark Smith
28. Comment #266557 by decius on October 19, 2008 at 9:51 am
Comment #266546 by NairbHowever Pbum and HungarianElephant have been blowing this argument out of the water on a number of threads
I am sorry, but PBUM has blown jackshit out of the water. I have shown how his argument is ideological of the libertarian bent, and not rational. Eventually, he didn't reply to me any further.
You can find our exchange here onward.
I didn't discuss the matter with Hungarian as deeply as I would have wanted to, but he conceded that equality in front of the law is indeed threatened by sharia, which eventually leads to the downfall of all the Byzantine arguments of its supporters.
Edit - Make sure that you reach the end of the thread, please, if you care to read it.
Other Comments by decius
29. Comment #266582 by Nairb on October 19, 2008 at 11:17 am
Mark Smith
Thats what I am afraid of. I still hope there should be some way of doing that though. Lets see in Decisus argument
The only thing I see to help is that even in contracts there is probably still sime guidelines imposed by government to protect individuals.
In france ( I presume there are paralells elsewhere) if you buy over the internet the buyer is protected for a set period and can get a full refund if not satisfied.
This thinking seems to imply the law does not have a laissez faire attitude to individual contracts.
Hopefully this is the angle we can use.
Other Comments by Nairb
30. Comment #266586 by j.mills on October 19, 2008 at 11:21 am
Hmm. Whilst I can see a case for ensuring arbitration is non-discriminatory, it sounds like current law can't prevent this form of arbitration. Maybe then there should be an effort (publicity campaign?) to prevent people (particularly women) from being pressured into accepting the arbitration in the first place, and proactive investigation leading to prosecution where such pressure has been applied. (Harrassment? Threatening behaviour? Perverting the course of justice?) Other Comments by j.mills
31. Comment #266588 by decius on October 19, 2008 at 11:35 am
Comment #266582 by NairbComment #266586 by j.mills
It's proving already impossible to prevent many gruesome episodes of violence on muslim women, imagine the difficulty and cost of monitoring these arbitrations and the circumstances in which they come about.
Other Comments by decius
32. Comment #266594 by Nairb on October 19, 2008 at 11:49 am
Decius
I had a look at your postings. However your arguments seem to be an intellectual one against sharia, which I completely agree with.
The problem is that some subsets of sharia like inheritance can be applied in arbitration or even outside of arbitration amongst willing individuals entering into a contract.
This is a serious legal issue. (EDIT: Not just an intellectual one)
However much I would like sharia or any archaic discriminatory rules to be outlawed, I dont think we can legally prevent people from creating such contracts.(EDIT : I wish we could)
As a step 1 - I would like the British law to be able to break these contracts (EDIT those set in arboitration courts) on the basis of discrimination and not uphold them on the basis that they are normal contracts.
If we can insure that then it would be at least a safety net.
As a step 2 I would like to see laws which prevent the application/support of descriminatory contracts in arbitration courts.
As a step 3 I would regulate any company or association wishing to provide an arbitration service. Such entities should be obliged to submit their rules in advance for validation against Human Rights. Also there should be survbeilance or these tribunals findings with revocation if they are found to be repeatedly out of line with law.
EDIT: This is all nice and prescriptive. The question is can this easily be applied in law? Perhaps this is easy , or extremely difficult -contradicts fundamental freedoms law. I think we need a legal person to answer that.
Other Comments by Nairb
33. Comment #266611 by Nairb on October 19, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Comment #266588 by decius
Decius
I fully support your abhorence of "kangaroo" religous based "courts".
The question is what approach is best to stop them (from a Legal point of view) using arbitration for certain types of disputes.
I dont think the answer is simpe or obvious.
But I dont think the case is hopeless either.
Other Comments by Nairb
34. Comment #266622 by Stafford Gordon on October 19, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I thought I saw Professor Grayling in the audience; his contribution was heartening as well as frightening; but I suppose that's what's needed.Other Comments by Stafford Gordon
35. Comment #266718 by decius on October 19, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Comment #266611 by NairbThanks for your attention and replies.
I think we are broadly in agreement.
We just differ as to the right of sharia courts of having been established in the first place. I bet the case for their illegal status will soon be made. We'll see in the next few months.
Cheers
Other Comments by decius
36. Comment #266793 by Border Collie on October 19, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Hopefully, you guys can halt Islamism on your side of the pond. We already have enough religious nuts over here in the colonies. Other Comments by Border Collie
37. Comment #267011 by Peacebeuponme on October 20, 2008 at 5:26 am
Richard DawkinsThen we need to spend our energies fighting this coercion, educating muslim women about our freedoms and providing muslim women with adequate support and friendship, instead of limiting our freedom to arbitrate.This is completely true but the corollary is all one has to do to NOT be bound by Sharia Law, Paper Stone Scissor or the High Court of the FSM is not to agree to that binding arbitration.This sounds reasonable, but it received short shrift at the conference of Ex-Muslims. The reason, as many people pointed out, is that women in Islam are bullied, beaten and intimidated, and are far from free agents in their choice of court. Many are told, falsely, that Sharia courts are the ONLY option. They often believe this, especially those who don't speak English (and many Muslim women in Britain are discouraged from learning English, just as girls in Afghanistan are discouraged from having any education at all). Many British Muslims are told, no doubt by their "community leaders" that to go to a British court as opposed to a Sharia court is "un-Islamic".
Sorry to bang on about this, but I'm extremely concerned at the level of restrictions, big brother watching and nannying that goes on already in this "liberal democracy".
Oh, and it is unislamic to go to a non-Sharia court isn't it? Muslims have a choice to make about adherence to their faith and getting a fair deal. I don't see the point in trying to dress things up by saying other forms of dispute resolution are consistent with Islam. Maybe the fact that a muslim sees how crazy sharia judgments are (and hence want to use non-Sharia methods) will make him or her question the value of their faith, rather than try to shoe-horn Islam into unislamic places.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
38. Comment #267015 by Peacebeuponme on October 20, 2008 at 5:33 am
deciusI am sorry, but PBUM has blown jackshit out of the water. I have shown how his argument is ideological of the libertarian bent, and not rational. Eventually, he didn't reply to me any further.I was exhausted. Nothing you said convinced me that I am adopting anything other than a fair position. I'm sorry you can't see it that way, but I didn't see the value in us both repeatng the points ad naueseum.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
39. Comment #267019 by Peacebeuponme on October 20, 2008 at 5:40 am
SteveOne of the reasons I have been revising my views is a recent BBC Radio 4 report on so-called "ethical" banking in these troubled financial times.I totally agree that to call anything connected with Islam as "ethical" in abhorrent, however, given the current state of the world ecomony, it looks like those muslims (and also early Christians and Jews) have something in their aversion to lending at interest.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
40. Comment #267024 by decius on October 20, 2008 at 5:50 am
Comment #267015 by Peacebeuponme Surely I didn't presume to convince you. That would prove impossible, I suspect.
I was just pointing out that your points appear to me extremely weak and ideological in nature.
I am absolutely satisfied with being in total agreement with Grayling and Dawkins on this - if they couldn't convince you, neither will I.
Other Comments by decius
41. Comment #267026 by Steve Zara on October 20, 2008 at 5:55 am
Comment #267019 by PeacebeuponmeI don't think that anything connected with Islam is unethical in itself. I have no problem with the idea of an aversion to lending with interested. What I dislike is the idea that people may be co-erced into that practice rather than being allowed to choose it out of free will.
If people want to have lending without interest, let them make a case for it rationally, have it available for all. It should not be justified by, or labelled as, a religious principle.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
42. Comment #267029 by Peacebeuponme on October 20, 2008 at 5:59 am
deciusThat would prove impossible, I suspect.One could infer that, except for the fact that I was opposed to Sharia arbitration until a read a few articles and thought about it some more
your points appear to me extremely weak and ideological in natureI suppose they would. "Ideological" is one of those great hand-waving, dismissive comments, isn't it? Characterise me as a young hothead or somesuch and be done with it.
That's why we can't continue, because we are at the stage where all our supporing points are laid out, and all we have left is "you're wrong", or "your arguments are weak". I see enough of that with other posters and don't want to add to it myself.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
43. Comment #267033 by Peacebeuponme on October 20, 2008 at 6:05 am
SteveI don't think that anything connected with Islam is unethical in itself.I think its fair to. Anybody who calls themselve a muslim is immoral on some level. They may be a very agreeable person, but they are still supporting an institution with immoral teachings.
If people want to have lending without interest, let them make a case for it rationally, have it available for all. It should not be justified by, or labelled as, a religious principle.I agree. I wasn't suggesting I like Sharia-labelled finance, just that its interesting that, in princple, non-interest lending seems to be a good thing. There are many religious rules that are born of practicality, at least at the time. The trick is to get people to adhere because of the underlying rationale, rather than superstition.
Sharia finance is sadly becoming a way for greedy muslims to circumvent the teachings anyway. Much like Kosher lifts and Eruvs.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
44. Comment #267035 by Peacebeuponme on October 20, 2008 at 6:08 am
deciusI am absolutely satisfied with being in total agreement with Grayling and Dawkins on this - if they couldn't convince you, neither will I.ha!
I thought it was only theists who were fond of the argument from authority.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
45. Comment #267036 by decius on October 20, 2008 at 6:09 am
Comment #267029 by Peacebeuponme I suppose they would. "Ideological" is one of those great hand-waving, dismissive comments, isn't it? Characterise me as a young hothead or somesuch and be done with it.
Not at all.
Among your phrases there were things like "And I thought you were a liberal", "nanny state", and tonnes of undiluted libertarian content.
At least be honest about this, thank you.
Other Comments by decius
46. Comment #267041 by decius on October 20, 2008 at 6:20 am
Comment #267035 by Peacebeuponme I thought it was only theists who were fond of the argument from authority.
It wasn't an argument from authority, but an objective fact. I didn't say it in order to change your mind or to add it to the discussion.
As I said, I don't presume to change your mind.
I am free, however, to point out whom I agree with, aren't I?
Other Comments by decius
47. Comment #267043 by hungarianelephant on October 20, 2008 at 6:27 am
28. Comment #266557 by decius on October 19, 2008 at 9:51 amI didn't discuss the matter with Hungarian as deeply as I would have wanted to, but he conceded that equality in front of the law is indeed threatened by sharia, which eventually leads to the downfall of all the Byzantine arguments of its supporters.
That's not what I said.
What I actually conceded is that sharia, rigorously applied as generally understood, would be contrary to the principle of equality before the law, because of the "man is worth twice a woman" stuff, amongst other things.
But I also made the point, repeatedly, that if this were applied as a rule of evidence, the civil courts would strike down the decision of the sharia court. This is because the agreement to arbitrate is itself a contract in English law, and this kind of discrimination would be illegal.
As Narib has pointed out on another thread, by the time you've crossed out everything a sharia court does which would be reversed by a civil court, you're left with something which isn't really sharia at all. However, that is immaterial. It is the imam's problem, not ours. Its existence does not suddenly mean that the civil courts will say, "Oh, ok. Why didn't you say so? Sure - cut off as many hands as you like."
As to the coercion point, would someone please show me some evidence that Muslim women are more likely to be coerced out of appealing to a civil court against a sharia judgment than initiating an action in a civil court in the first place?
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
48. Comment #267045 by Peacebeuponme on October 20, 2008 at 6:31 am
Well I don't think those two comments are particuarly confrontational, though I regret putting it like that to Steve. I try not to be antagonistic towards those here who one can debate with. Saying things like "your arguments are weak" in any case don't progress things.As for calling me a "libertarian" I don't see it as a slur in this context, but hey-ho. If I am a libertarian in respect of this issue I can live with it. Contrast with my back-and-forth with Darwins Pitbull (who is moronic). And btw - I stopped replying there as well. I really hope any people checking in don't think I have to chalk up a win for him there!
I am free, however, to point out whom I agree with, aren't I?Of course, with as much of a conceited undercurrent as you like ;)
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
49. Comment #267048 by decius on October 20, 2008 at 6:34 am
Comment #267043 by hungarianelephant As to the coercion point, would someone please show me some evidence that Muslim women are more likely to be coerced out of appealing to a civil court against a sharia judgment than initiating an action in a civil court in the first place?
Well, let's give them time, shall we? They have just set up their savage courts, let's be fair.
Would you accept, as valid, evidence of muslim women (in the UK) being forced into marriage?
If they can be coerced into that, they can be forced pretty much into anything, can't they?
Edited for clarity.
Other Comments by decius
50. Comment #267050 by decius on October 20, 2008 at 6:39 am
PBUMAs for calling me a "libertarian" I don't see it as a slur in this context
You are right, because it isn't intended as such. Merely, in my opinion, it shows what you base your reasoning on - namely, some abstract ideal of personal liberty.
Other Comments by decius
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #266429 by Monosilabbiq on October 19, 2008 at 12:47 am
The Council of ex-Muslims should be given as big a role in advising the British Government as the British Muslim Council on matters pertaining to community issues. Just getting them to sit in the same room and engaged in sensible dialogue would be wonderful.While I understand that it is British Law that individuals can agree to arbitration where ever they choose, I do think that the principals "enshrined" in British Law should never be dispensed with. Agreeing to a discriminatory ruling is bizarre.
Other Comments by Monosilabbiq